Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Government plans to hold two referendums on 8 March, one of which is about the definition of the "family". The proposal is based on the citizens’ assembly’s recommendations and aims to amend Article 41 of the Constitution. The term “durable relationships” is undefined and will be determined by case law. The referendum’s wording raises questions about: the types of relationships included, the impact on various laws and the necessity of this constitutional change, given existing laws. The proposed amendments seem to serve no positive purpose and it might be sensible to vote “No”. The Government’s decision to not hold the referendum with the European and local elections could save up to €15 million, but it seems to be a cynical exercise to let the electorate blow off some steam before the June elections.

The proposed amendment to Article 41.1.1° of the Constitution would recognise families based on “marriage or on other durable relationships”, creating confusion and inconsistency in immigration and reunification rules, potentially leading to more legal disputes, delays, and costs. The amendment fails to address real challenges facing families in Ireland, such as affordable housing, childcare costs, domestic violence and discrimination against disabled persons. It could undermine the existing protection for marital families and impose a one-size-fits-all approach. The proposed amendment leaves it to the courts to decide what constitutes “other durable relationships”, opening the door for a wide range of interpretations, with serious implications for immigration and reunification policies and tax and inheritance rights. The amendment could undermine the existing protection for marital families and impose a one-size-fits-all approach that does not reflect the diversity and complexity of family life in Ireland today.

The Government’s proposal could have far-reaching consequences, such as an unrelated neighbour of an elderly farmer being recognised as family and claiming inheritance and tax benefits. This is not a minor change but a radical departure from the traditional understanding of family. It lacks a clear plan for implementation in law. There is an urgent need for debate as voters are being misled that the proposed changes are small and symbolic.

See this speech in context